Editorial: Where to find money to fix old bridges

Workers install the temporary bridge extension Monday, June 10, 2013, over the Skagit River on Interstate 5 on the southern end of the span. ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTO

The collapse of the Interstate 5 bridge over Washington State's Skagit River on May 23 has reinvigorated the national infrastructure debate and led to renewed calls for an infrastructure bank and higher infrastructure-related taxes.

While thankfully no lives were lost in the collapse, the result of a truck collision, the bridge had been rated "functionally obsolete." That means the bridge lacked any apparent structural deficiencies, but was outdated in its design or unable to accommodate traffic.

In Orange County, as reported by the Register, 250 bridges are rated functionally obsolete on the National Bridge Inventory, and more than 50 bridges are rated structurally deficient.

Structurally deficient bridges are defined as those requiring significant repair or replacement.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has rated the nation's bridge infrastructure at a C+, and overall infrastructure a D+, based on Federal Highway Administration data, in their 2013 infrastructure report card.

Their solution is the obvious one: Spend more money.

In the report, it is estimated that $3.6 trillion in infrastructure investment will be needed by 2020, and the society wants infrastructure prioritized by setting a goal of raising revenue "by approximately $8 billion annually from all levels of government, to a total annual funding level of $20.5 billion."

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has a different solution novel in its simplicity: Use existing highway and bridge funds for highways and bridges.

In fiscal year 2013, more than $3 billion in highway funds has been appropriated to California, and an increase in the gas tax – now 48.7 cents per every gallon of gasoline in excise tax, other taxes and fees – is expected to generate more than $500 million in the coming fiscal year.

Heritage's Emily Goff, in an April report, noted that highways and bridges receive around 84 percent of federal gasoline tax revenue, while another 16 percent goes into a transit account. Similarly, a portion of state gasoline taxes are diverted to other transit projects, including light rail, buses and trolleys.

While the diversions to transit are meant to help relieve traffic congestion and pollution, mass transit between 1993 and 2010 "accounted for only about 1 percent of the nation's surface travel," Ms. Goff said. "Traffic volumes in the nation's 51 major metropolitan areas increased by 87 percent, peak travel times in those areas increased by 125 percent, and transit's share of passenger miles fell by one-fourth."

While growing mass transit is an admirable goal to mitigate congestion and reduce pollution, it is not working. The United States, and California even more so, is a land of drivers, and readily available funds should be directed towards the vital national infrastructure that receives the most use.

Evenly paved roads and bridges that can accommodate growing traffic levels will do far more to reduce congestion and pollution than building public transit to nowhere.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.